Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):A lot of the new baseball metrics are overcomplicated garbage

Conceived by statnerds so they can say "Look how smart I am!!"

Most probably don't even understand baseball. Plenty of HBD players are clueless to actual baseball but they can work numbers.

I'm a stat guy and I've created a reasonably simple, but all inclusive stat that bases itself around what players do/produce and can control, so H, TB, SB, CS, BB, HBP, and K...yes it's a solely offensive analysis but I would argue more/as solid as anything out there currently...everything isn't a regressive this that or the other.

Conversely, I can't stand people that voted for/favor Cabrera saying that his team won their division, while leaving out the fact that they won 1 less game than the Angels...that argument is moot and if winning a **** division is better for you as opposed to finishing 3rd in a great division with a better record than the DW...you're crazy

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):Conversely, I can't stand people that voted for/favor Cabrera saying that his team won their division, while leaving out the fact that they won 1 less game than the Angels...that argument is moot and if winning a **** division is better for you as opposed to finishing 3rd in a great division with a better record than the DW...you're crazy

Yes. 99% of people would probably be "crazy", as they would feel winning a **** division (and ultimately a WS appearance) is a better situation than 3rd in a better one.

Honestly, the problem I have with some of these "advanced metrics" is the arbitrary number that's often chosen to "prove" what needs to be proven. I could dig back and find that playing CF is worth 12 runs more than playing 1B. I have no doubt that the worst CF is worth more defensively than the best 1B, or at least of equal value. I just have trouble believing the best/worst CF are both worth 12 runs more than the best/worst 1B. If you read enough "advanced metric" explanations, you'll find they use "3.4" or "19" or whatever number that seems to be their favorite in their formulas. That turns me off.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2012 3:14:00 PM (view original):Honestly, the problem I have with some of these "advanced metrics" is the arbitrary number that's often chosen to "prove" what needs to be proven. I could dig back and find that playing CF is worth 12 runs more than playing 1B. I have no doubt that the worst CF is worth more defensively than the best 1B, or at least of equal value. I just have trouble believing the best/worst CF are both worth 12 runs more than the best/worst 1B. If you read enough "advanced metric" explanations, you'll find they use "3.4" or "19" or whatever number that seems to be their favorite in their formulas. That turns me off.

It will likely evolve over time. That's why nobody should look at WAR and have that be your only argument. Look at everything, and make a decision.

When the AM evolve into something where they can explain the use of "3.4", I'll pay more attention to them.

I don't need WAR to know that both Trout and Cabrera had fantastic seasons. WAR is a nice little stat that one can use to compare players but it's simply not the be all to end all. A CF putting up 30 homers and 49 SB while hitting .326 is pretty damn good. Striking out once every 4.5 PA is not. Of course, that could lead to the ol' "An out is an out. Strikeouts are no worse than fly outs" argument. But, for me, nothing positive happens when you walk back to the dugout with your bat in your hand.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):When the AM evolve into something where they can explain the use of "3.4", I'll pay more attention to them.

I don't need WAR to know that both Trout and Cabrera had fantastic seasons. WAR is a nice little stat that one can use to compare players but it's simply not the be all to end all. A CF putting up 30 homers and 49 SB while hitting .326 is pretty damn good. Striking out once every 4.5 PA is not. Of course, that could lead to the ol' "An out is an out. Strikeouts are no worse than fly outs" argument. But, for me, nothing positive happens when you walk back to the dugout with your bat in your hand.

Cabrera grounded into 28 DP's where Trout only grounded into 7.

Double plays (a.k.a "rally killers") are far more damaging to offensive innings than are strikeouts.